MSNBC reporter David Shuster, while guest hosting for Tucker Carlson on Thursday, made an unfortunate comment about Chelsea Clinton. In discussing the former first daughter’s phone calls to three of the women on ABC’s “The View,” Shuster said, “Doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” The network was quick to act and announced that Shuster had been suspended.

But Shuster’s comments seem mild when compared to something said by his “Morning Joe” colleague Joe Scarborough last June. As you may remember, The Palmetto Scoop broke the clip of Scarborough implying that Sen. Fred Thompson’s wife was a stripper — or worse — when he asked CQ’s Craig Crawford if he thought she “works the pole.”

For that little comment MSNBC took absolutely no disciplinary action, despite the barrage of outrage from numerous bloggers across the country. Scarborough did make a few half-hearted quasi-apologies, but remained on the air and would later permanently lock down the morning spot. Which is a hypocritical load of garbage.

By their actions, it’s acceptable to call Thompson’s wife a stripper, but if someone dares to say that the Clinton’s daughter is “being pimped” then MSNBC instantly hands out punishments. What the hell?

I’m not going to make the obvious suggestion that MSNBC allows their hosts to say nasty things about Republicans while chastising anyone who bashes a Democrat — although I guess I just did — but it certainly looks that way. Of course, in their defense, they did let their flagship political host Chris Matthews say that Hillary’s core constituency consists of “militant women” who are unlike all the other women in America that “stay home and don’t go out and work.”

I’ve been going after MSNBC host Joe Scarborough a lot lately because that station is letting him run around unchecked for countless hours as an “objective journalist.” I’m fine with “objective journalists” injecting a little bit of opinion here and there, but there isn’t a moment when Scarborough is on camera that he isn’t spinning stories for Mitt Romney. It’s ridiculous and I can’t think of any other news anchor on cable or network television that is allowed to feign the role of an unbiased reporter while incessantly pushing a campaign’s narrative.

If MSNBC wants a pro-Romney point of view then they should get a neutral moderator and bring in talking heads from all sides. But having a Romney propagandist moderator defeats all efforts at neutrality. Add in MSNBC’s go-to conservative talking head Pat Buchanan — whose sister is a top adviser to the former Mass. governor — and it might as well be a Romney campaign strategy session.

And I’m not the only one calling Scarborough and MSNBC on the spin overkill. On Thursday’s Morning Joe, Scarborough spoke with Mike Huckabee (above video) and attempted to bait him into agreeing that the only reason John McCain was on his way to winning the GOP presidential nomination was that “there were three conservatives splitting the conservative vote.” In his words, this gave McCain, “the moderate,” room to sneak through. Scarborough also promoted the spin that “conservatives are coalescing around Romney.”

Huckabee’s candid response was that Romney was never a conservative until he decided he wanted to be president and that he has no credibility whatsoever. And the punch line about Romney’s “conservatism” was priceless: “Here’s a man who didn’t hit political puberty in the conservative ranks until 60 years old.”

So, once again, is Scarborough really fair?

Here’s another bit of total B.S. from MSNBC’s “unbiased” news host/secret Mitt Romney spinster Joe Scarborough. On Tuesday, he presented as fact the bogus Romney spin-machine claim that if Mike Huckabee wasn’t in the race, Romney would be winning.

But here’s what the exit polling showed:

Huckabee supporters preferred McCain by five points while the Giuliani vote was split between McCain and Romney, with Romney getting a one-point edge.

So not only was Scarborough dead wrong about Romney winning by a few points, but he completely lied about the “countless Republican voters all across this state” who said “a vote for Huckabee is a vote for John McCain.” He lied about those voters “breaking Mitt Romney’s way.”

He lied about the evangelical voters going for Romney.

He lied about the Giuliani “moderates” who were going to “break for John McCain” to snub Romney.

And he did all of this in advance of Romney’s loss, on Romney’s behalf, so that he could push the Romney narrative and insulate his guy from the damning results.

In fact, if Huckabee wasn’t in the race, McCain would have won by a much larger margin. It also appears that there is an “anybody but Mitt” mentality that is shared by supporters of multiple campaigns.

But Scarborough unabashedly continued his pro-Romney ranting despite all these facts and said, “I don’t give a damn what anybody says tonight, John McCain will not get conservatives behind him in the fall.” Apparently, he must have also missed the part of the exit poll that had McCain winning conservatives 35 percent to 32 percent in the Republican-only primary.

Inevitably, when MSNBC lets Scarborough — who resembles the reactionary right wing radio hosts more than a supposed “impartial journalist” — run loose for at least eight hours a day spewing Romney’s propaganda, they make their political coverage look like a joke.

So, once again, is Scarborough really fair?

All signs indicate that no, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough is not fair. Not at all. Even if I ignored the signs though, I could just turn my television to “The Place for Politics” and wait five minutes or so for this “objective journalist” to take the screen and present “bias free” news and commentary. And yes, everything in quotes is sarcasm.

For example, in the above clip Scarborough Wednesday prefaced a question to Mitt Romney by claiming — as if 100 percent factually true — that half of the credit for John McCain’s Florida presidential primary win goes to “the fact that he lied about [Romney's] position on getting out of Iraq.”

But who’s really “lying” here? Watch the video to see (hint: It’s not McCain).

Worse than his lies though is the fact that MSNBC continually lets Scarborough get away with constantly spinning for Team Romney and doing so from a position of feigned impartiality. Every time the guy is on camera he’s pushing their narrative.

If Chris Matthews and company really want to restore any of the credibility lost by Scarborough’s antics, they would cut down on his face time or outright fire him. Seriously, do they really need to have a guy with a blatantly pro-Romney agenda hosting a six-hour block of political news coverage every the morning and making twice-hourly appearances for the rest of the day?

So is Scarborough, as MSNBC tries to argue, really fair? And if not, why does MSNBC keep him around as anything more than just a talking head?

I’ve written two posts in the last week detailing MSNBC host Joe Scarborough’s unabashed use of his position as an “unbiased journalist” to push presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s agenda to millions on national television. As you can tell by the above clip posted by the Romney campaign following Thursday’s GOP debate in Florida, my previous posts are only two examples of the recent tidal wave of unprofessionalism demonstrated by the man who The Palmetto Scoop busted in June as saying that Fred Thompson’s wife Jeri “works the pole.”

But the evidence of a Scarborough-Romney coup keeps piling up.

Earlier this week, Scarborough editorialized his support for Romney in what can only be called an endorsement. Scarborough opened the piece with a set of toadying pros and damning cons for Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee.

I like Ron Paul’s libertarian views regarding the size of our federal government, but I am deeply offended by his belief that U.S. foreign policy was the cause of September 11. That conclusion shows a dangerous ignorance of our enemies that should not be carried into the White House.

Rudy Giuliani does understand the dangers of Islamic radicalism, but is he concerned with the dangers of our ever-expanding federal government?

Mike Huckabee talks about the importance of faith in American life, but is he the guy Republicans want in the Oval Office when al-Qaida gets their hands on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons?

Then he got to Romney.

Mitt Romney is the most accomplished executive leader by far, but will he govern as a Reagan conservative or a Massachusetts moderate?

Wait… was there a con in there? His downside for Huckabee was that his presidency would result in a successful nuclear attack from Pakistan while his downside for Romney was that, although he’ll probably come close, he might not quite stack up to Ronald Reagan.

After that “impartial” assessment of the field, Scarborough closed with six paragraphs ripping into Romney’s chief rival, Republican front-runner John McCain. Six paragraphs! That’s two more than his “objective ” review of all the other candidates.

If that isn’t enough to convince you that Scarborough is shilling for Romney, here are three quotes from Thursday’s Hardball (courtesy of National Journal’s The Hotline):

MSNBC’s Scarborough: “The first 30 minutes it was about the economy. I thought Mitt Romney absolutely dominated that segment of it. You had John McCain talking twice. We were sort of scratching our heads watching. Twice he brought up the bridge to nowhere. … I think conservatives probably related to Mitt Romney, talking about tax cuts, talking about being a governor, talking about what he did in the private sector for all those years. On the economic part of this debate, I don’t know there’s any doubt that this was Mitt Romney’s best performance” (”Hardball,” 1/24).

MSNBC’s Scarborough, on Stallone’s endorsement: “He’s a little late. That may have worked in Iowa, but now in Florida on Super Tuesday, it’s about cash. Mitt Romney has it, nobody else does. … McCain may spend half a million dollars in Florida. That’s like going out to the Atlantic when a hurricane comes along and spitting in the wind” (”Hardball,” 1/24).

MSNBC’s Scarborough: “I always love people that underestimate Mitt Romney. Let’s step back for a second. This is a Mormon. This is a Republican who got elected in Massachusetts. Please. Underestimate Mitt Romney at your own peril. This guy has been underestimated time and again. We heard after Iowa he was done. We heard after New Hampshire he was done. We went up to Michigan, he won and everybody said, yeah, he won, but he lied winning. I mean, everybody underestimates this guy. You watch, he’s going to keep being underestimated” (”Hardball,” 1/24).

Then of course, there’s still this and this.

As I’ve noted before, if Scarborough wants to lobby for Romney, that’s fine. But he needs to let viewers know that he is backing Romney or that he is being paid by Romney or whatever is going on. And he certainly needs to drop the “unbiased journalist” facade.

To my knowledge, Scarborough is the only commentator of his nature on television that is not just a talking head but a full-fledged journalist — sworn to uphold neutrality — that is openly expressing favoritism toward a presidential candidate. And MSNBC is largely letting him get away with it.

IS SOMEBODY ON THE TAKE?

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough launched into another fact-less tirade Monday, trying to spin the Nevada caucus and South Carolina primary results to favor his candidate Mitt Romney. This marks the second day in a row that he has pushed what he calls his “narrative” that the media — himself not included of course — is purposefully ignoring Romney’s “delegate lead.”

The first problem is that Scarborough, who was busted by The Palmetto Scoop in June for saying that Fred Thompson’s wife Jeri “works the pole,” hasn’t officially revealed his bias toward (or possible connections to) the Romney campaign. Yet, in his latest diatribe, he ripped other media outlets including the Associated Press for allegedly doing just that.

Could it be that Scarborough, who has already proven his contempt for Romney’s opponents, has some kind of deeper — possibly financial — reason for using his nationally-televised “Morning Joe” show to push Romney’s agenda? I’m not sure. But what I am sure of is the second problem: the fact that his claims are completely bogus.

We debunked the “Nevada is more important than South Carolina” argument Saturday that Scarborough continues to promote, noting that: a. Nevada wasn’t contested at all… by anyone… ever and; b. Romney didn’t actually win any delegates to the national convention meaning Nevada was nothing more than a glorified straw poll.

Now Scarborough is taking his spin to new levels by flat-out distorting the truth.  He said Monday (5:04 mark in the above clip), “What you’re not hearing also from the national media is this, John McCain lost among Republicans in South Carolina.”

But what you’re not hearing from Scarborough is that McCain beat Romney more than two-to-one among Republicans here.

What you’re not hearing from Scarborough is that McCain beat Romney nearly two-to-one among conservatives here.

What you’re not hearing from Scarborough is that McCain beat Romney nearly two-to-one among evangelicals here.

What you’re not hearing from Scarborough is that McCain beat Romney nearly two-to-one in the very conservative, evangelical Upstate.

And what you’re not hearing from Scarborough is that Romney outspent McCain more than four-to-one here.

Oh, and against Mike Huckabee, McCain tied among Republicans and took pretty much everything else except evangelicals.

Yet mistakenly, Scarborough thinks he can say “anyone who thinks I’m in the tank for Romney doesn’t know me at all” and that will cover his motives as he blatantly spews pro-Romney misinformation.

If Scarborough wants to lobby for Romney, that’s fine.  He has every right to do it and I wouldn’t even care if he used his MSNBC show to do it.  But he could at least tell viewers that he backs Romney or that he is being paid by Romney or whatever before he took to his “narrative.”

I back McCain, I’ve been up front and honest about backing McCain and I hope everyone reads my content knowing that I back McCain.  I think it’s time for Scarborough to take a cue from we basement-dwelling Cheeto-eating bloggers and offer some disclosure about his “Romney’s being persecuted” storyline.

That’s what MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell called today’s “gold medal” in Nevada for presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Sure the state was uncontested by any other Republican except for Ron Paul, but by winning out there, Romney picked up 31 delegates to South Carolina’s measly 24, right? So by bailing on this state in favor of an easy victory in the Silver State, Romney comes out on top and holds a huge delegate lead.

Well, that’s the spin coming from the Romney camp. And, as you can see in that clip above, it’s being pushed pretty heavily by another MSNBC anchor, my very favorite Joe Scarborough.

But there’s a problem.

Nevada isn’t awarding any delegates today. Actually, today’s caucus was basically the equivalent of a straw poll. Mark Halperin at The Page noted:

Delegate selection there is actually a 3-step process that is wholly independent from today’s results. Thus today’s presidential preference poll in Nevada is only a so-called “beauty contest.”

Now, if you’re interested in these steps, here they are:

§ Step 1 — Precinct caucuses on January 19th will elect county-conventions delegates

§ Step 2 — County conventions in mid-February will elect state-convention delegates

§ Step 3 — Delegates at the April 26th GOP state convention will elect national-convention delegates

In South Carolina on the other hand, we are awarding ALL of our delegates an, unlike Nevada, they will ALL be voting as pledged.

SORT OF.

In what has to be one of the WORST apologizes of all time, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough ATTEMPTED to make amens - through a series of condescending laughs and much ridicule from his co-hosts - on Friday’s Morning Joe for his comment suggesting soon-to-be-presidential candidate Fred Thompson’s wife “works the poll.” After nearly five painful minutes downplaying the comment as little more than a harmless exercise segue, Scarborough finally muttered a not-so-heartfelt “I apologize” to the Thompsons.

Because this apology is so bad and because his recollection of the event is so WRONG, we decided to follow along in our first-ever “pop-up video.”